The real-life consequences since the day they left the hospital with their healthy baby boy have kept Dr. Sara Watson and Anna Ford up at night. What if something happens to one of them? Who would be recognized as his parent?

Katherine Gregg Journal Political Writer kathyprojo

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — At three-and-a-half months, blue-eyed, red-haired Eli Watson is at the center of the latest battle in the Rhode Island legislature over equal-rights for same-sex couples.

The immediate issue: whether the two South County women who are raising Eli — his birth mother, Anna Ford, 37, and her partner, Dr. Sara Watson, 34 — can both be named as his parents on his birth certificate without going through legal somersaults that they would not have to face if they were an unmarried heterosexual couple.

Current state law provides a place for the name of "the father" to be entered on a child's birth certificate, regardless of marital status or genetic truth.

More specifically, it says: "If the mother was not married either at the time of conception or birth, the child shall bear the mother's surname and the name of the father shall not be entered on the certificate of birth without the written consent of the mother and the person to be named as the father unless a determination of paternity has been made by a court of competent jurisdiction..."

There is nothing cookie-cutter about the story that Anna, a nurse, and Sara, a family-medicine doctor, brought to the State House for a hearing last week on the bill that state Rep. Carol McEntee, D-South Kingstown, introduced at their request.

Friends since high school in Chappaqua, New York. A couple for four-and-a-half years. Parents via in vitro fertilization — IVF — by the sperm of an anonymous donor.

They have not married because, as Sara explains it: 'We both had been married in the past. We weren't ready yet. We didn't figure it would be as hard as it was," that there would be "a separate standard for parentage" for unmarried gay couples.

"It seems inherently unfair," Sara said in testimony at the State House and again in telephone and email interviews. "I am my son's parent. I have been since conception. I was there when we started our 2.5 year IVF journey. I went to every single prenatal appointment. I was present for every minute of his 29-hour labor and delivery [and the time since] snuggling, feeding, changing, burping, and loving on him."

And then there's this, which doesn't have any bearing on the legal predicament they are asking state lawmakers to fix for couples in their situation:

After eight failed tries at in vitro fertilization, Sara donated her eggs to be fertilized by sperm from an anonymous donor to create an embryo that was then implanted into Anna's uterus.

"We may get married in the future," Sara said, "but we didn't, and I don't think that there should be a separate standard applied to us, just because we happen to be two ladies."

Though she and Anna have since initiated adoption proceedings, she said the real-life consequences since the day they left the hospital with their healthy baby boy have kept them both up at night.

"If I had my name on the birth certificate there would be an assumption of parenthood," but "if we were to travel to a different state or a different country before I adopted him, I would literally have no right to him. So, if something were to happen to my partner, there would be no assumption that I am his parent ... so we feel afraid to travel."

"If the co-parent's name is not on the birth certificate and no action is taken to adopt then" — in the event of the unexpected — "there will be no parental obligation toward the child without court intervention," added the legislative sponsor, McEntee, a lawyer.

McEntee's bill would add these words to current law: "If the mother is in a same sex relationship at the time of either conception or birth, or between conception and birth, the name of the parenting partner, with the mother's written consent, shall be entered on the birth certificate as a parent of the child, unless parentage has been otherwise determined by a court of competent jurisdiction."

And: "The child's surname shall be determined by the mother."

In other words, "it puts them in the same position that any heterosexual couple is in," McEntee said.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island has endorsed the legislation, while suggested some word changes.

In her own letter to the House Judiciary Committee endorsing the goal of the legislation, the state's health director, Dr. Nicole Alexander-Scott, said Rhode Island law "has not kept pace with how family structures have changed," but it should.

"As a parent in a same sex relationship who did not give birth to a child, the parent needs to ensure that his/her parenting rights and responsibilities are acknowledged and respected, and that the parent's role in the child's life is made clear from the outset," she wrote. "Promoting strong families is the best way to protect the best interests of a child, promote child health and ensure child support."

As of now, no action has been taken on the legislation by the House committee, which held it for further study.

And no one spoke against it, though state Rep. Sherry Roberts, R-West Greenwich, voiced concern about the effect that changing the rules for naming parents on a birth certificate would have on future attempts to trace a person's genealogy.

Sara Watson's answer: birth certificates are not genetic records, for all sorts of reasons, and she would not want her child's birth certificate to forever have a blank space "just in case a father comes forward," because "there are families like mine where there is no father. There is a donor, and we do not expect him to come out of the woodwork."